|
|
Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Posted:
Apr 11, 2012 8:00 AM
|
|
Since we're talking about the simple yield counts, "19*36 = 684" in
the above post should have been "19+36 = 55" t-tests.
So these two paragraphs:
"So, for a given (L,p,q) triple, we can perform 19*36 = 684 t-tests,
and then see what percent P1 of these 684 t-tests showed a (j-1<=1)
yield to be signficantly greater than a (j-1>1) yield.
And since we can do these 684 t-tests 1050 times (once for each
(L,p,q) triple), we can determine what percent P2 of these 1050
trials
resulted in a P1 > 95%. "
should have read:
"So, for a given (L,p,q) triple, we can perform 19+36 = 55 t-tests,
and then see what percent P1 of these 55 t-tests showed a (j-1<=1)
yield to be signficantly greater than a (j-1>1) yield.
And since we can do these 55 t-tests 1050 times (once for each
(L,p,q) triple), we can determine what percent P2 of these 1050
trials
resulted in a P1 > 95%."
In other words, we test the mean of the yields for the 36 against each
of the yields for the 19, and test the mean of the yields for the 19
against each of the yields for the 36, for 55 tests in all.
When I typed 19*36=684, I was getting ahead of myself and thinking
about t-testing the values for the "span" variable I mentioned
earlier, not the simple yield variable itself.
|
|
